The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-04-28

VERTICAL TO the CINCINNATI arcn, and IN tne jour
hal of April IL he defines the course of the axis
IS follows: .n3ssg3 =
IA line drawn across the State from the
southeastern corner of Monroe township. Allen
county, by way of Huntington, Wabash. Lo-
gansport Monticello and Kentland would. IN
general way. indicate the course of this axis OF
Prof. Gorby says of this arch: "That this anti
clinai formed great barrier rock dam ex-
tending entirely across the State is quite clear
10 what altitude the summit of this ancient
barrier extended cannot even be coniectured.'
Now, II any such great arch or low mountain
range ever crossed the State from Kentland to
Huntington, 1t IS reasonable to suppose that
there would he some evidence of it still remain
Ing besides surface indications. One would ex-
pect to find the upper surface of the Trenton
rock higher along this line than either north or
south of it, but wells drilled so far give no evil
dence OF any such disturbance as is claimed for
the Wabash arch. The upper surface of the
Trenton is lower at Huntington than at Warren.
lower at Peru than at Marion or Kokomo, and
still lower at Logansport. To claim that the
elevation was followed by subsistence is beg
ging the question. With as much reason one
might claim a dozen arches in Indiana: and who
could controvert the claim?
Professor Orion says of the Wabash arch:
The lower limestone floor of northwestern Ohio
and northeastern Indiana is found to lie in an
uneasy and much-disturbed condition: the dis
turbances, however not always being referrable
to any large or great movements" THE Wa
bash arch in its larger features, if disturbance
extending to the northwestward would seem to
be part and parcel of the Cincinnati uplift."
"The title which Professor Gorby has intro
duced may prove misleading. as it would natur-
ally be interpreted indicating an arch extend
ing in the westerly direction of the Wabash
valley and the author certainly does not hold to
such a view" Now, whatever opinion Professor
Gorby may hold it is certain that Professor
Thompson considers that the Wabash axis. as
he terms it, is distinct arch from the following:
From the facts SO far gathered the Wabash
arch appears to be low, broad fold of irregular
outline. which at first was much higher and
sharper than it now Is" From what Professor
Orton says above, regarding the Wabash arch,
it is clear to my mind that he will not lndorse
Mr. Thompsons statement regarding it. For
my part, have watched carefully for any facts
that would throw light on the structure of that
portion of the State and must confess that so
far, not single fact has appeared that would in
any way show that the topography of the
Trenton limestone was produced by any such
axis of disturbance as suggested by Professor
thompson. do not deny that the surface
rocks seem to be much disturbed in certain To-
calities, but would be inclined to adopt the view
of Professor Orion. if | understand him cor
rectly that sucn disturbances were caused by
the forces which produced this northwestern
extension of the Cincinnati uplift. The expla-
ton suggested by Professors John Collett and
E. T. Cox may probably be nearer correct than
many would be willing to admit. While the
term false bedding" may, in itself. be mislead-
ing no doubt much Of the phenomena consid-
cred as profound disturbances can be referred to
this structure. There are facts which demon
strate the presence of an arch near the Wabash
river. from which the upper surface of the Tren
ton limestone dips quite rapidly to the eastward
en- one side and to the westward the other
side; but this arch is portion of the northwest
ern extension of the Cincinnati upift, broad
arch, tract, which has a marked prominence
in the topography of the Trenton limestone in
central eastern Indiana There is need of
claiming that the elevation of this broad tract,
or arch, was followed by subsistence, for it
stands to-day prominent feature in the struct-
ure of Indiana.
So long as the absence of an ARCH having the
direction suggested by Mr. Thompson. has to
be explained by the theory that its elevation
was followed by a subsistence, we shall be COM
PEELED to consider its existence problematical. to
say the least When he brings to light the
facts which demonstrate the existence of such
an arcn, l Will be wiling to admit his claim.
One statement made in Mr.. Thompson's article
strikes me very forcibly. He says: Il would
say here and with emphasis, that the distance
above or below sea level of Trenton limestone
in the gas wells is not safe gauge Of the
structural features of the rock" Now this is
equivalent to ignoring the revelations of the
drill. Professor, Orton is an earnest seeker
after just such facts, and it is only by carefully
gathering such data that ne, has been able to
give us to-day his valuable work on the gas
accept (l) Mr.. Thompson's explanation of the
variations in the level of the Trenton rock by
admitting that the Findlay monocline is due to
the Trenton rock beno thicker at one place ths.
at another, rather than the explanation ha mas
so ably given. Professor Coulter saws that
facts are the scientists stock in trade, hut Pro-
fessor Thompsop ignores facts. Now what in
ference would one naturally draw However.
ii all the data he has secured are unreliable as
those he published regarding the wells at Ma
rion one cannot blame him much for refusing
to be governed by the facts revealed by the drill
When the writer first began his Investigations OF
the Indiana gas felc he had no theory to main
tain: he simply desired to know the actual con
ditions present and in the few Communications
that have been published he has made no state
ments that were not supported by the facts In
every case the facts have been allowed to state
their case plainly and now after nearly one yeal
has elapsed, ne finds no necessity of making any
corrections to the statements made. Only what
could be proven has been stated as fact. anl
what was not known has been frankly admitted
Parties may not have understood whatwas writ
ten. or they may have received wrong impress
sions from superficial reading-such. for IN
stance, as Mr.. Thompsons statement abou,
anticlines parallel to the Cincinnati arch. Fo
all such am not responsible. / have never at
| tempted to mark out definitely the gas belt for
| whiieit is true that much is known about it
limits, it is also true thai more is not known
AS ] was not among those who prophesied tina
no gas or oil would ever be foand in paying guam
| titles in Indiana, so now am not engaged il
/ making predictions that no gas or oil will b.
| found here or there, simply and honestly becaus
don't know. The facts and data have not al
ways been given in my publications. because
has lately become manifest that it is much easie
for some parties to avail themselves of the fact
and data of others than 1t is to secure then
| themselves A. j. PHINNEY.
MUNCIE, Ind. April 81.